MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4396998132 · doi:10.1681/asn.20203110s1647c

Control of Blood Pressure in Elderly Patients with Heart Failure and Risk of Mortality

2020· article· en· W4396998132 on OpenAlexaff
Antonios Douros, Alice Schneider, Natalie Ebert, Martin K. Kuhlmann, Nina Mielke, Markus van der Giet, Elke Schäeffner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureBlood pressureCardiologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Blood pressure (BP) targets in elderly patients with heart failure (HF) are unclear and guidelines are based on expert consensus and extrapolation from populations without HF. Thus, our population-based prospective cohort study assessed if BP control <140/90 mmHg is associated with a decreased risk of mortality in elderly HF patients. Methods: We included participants of the Berlin Initiative Study, all ≥70 yrs, with HF and treated with antihypertensive drugs at baseline (2009-2011). Demographics, lifestyle factors, medication, and comorbidities were obtained in face-to-face interviews and linked with administrative healthcare data. BP status was defined as normalized BP (systolic BP <140 and diastolic BP <90 mmHg) or non-normalized BP (systolic BP ≥140 or diastolic BP ≥90 mmHg) and updated every 2 yrs, so that each patient could contribute person-time to both exposure categories during follow-up. Time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models estimated adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality associated with normalized BP compared with non-normalized BP in HF patients. Analyses were repeated in non-HF patients. Results: There were 544 HF patients treated with antihypertensive drugs (mean age 82.8 yrs; 45.4% female). During a median f/up of 7.5 yrs and compared with nonnormalized BP, normalized BP was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular death (HR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.23-2.61) and all-cause mortality (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.15-1.90). No increased risks of cardiovascular death (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.87-1.74) or allcause mortality (HR, 1.19; CI 0.95-1.49) associated with normalized BP were observed among 1079 non-HF patients. Conclusions: BP <140/90 mmHg was not associated with a decreased risk of mortality in elderly HF patients. The increased risk requires further confirmation. Funding: Private Foundation SupportRisk of cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality associated with normalized BP in older adults with HF

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology→Same topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies→French-language works237,207→